coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Ożarów Mazowiecki, Poland.
7.  Since 1969 the applicant had been receiving a monthly pension from the State Insurance Company (Państwowy Zakład Ubezpieczeń). It appears that in 1987 the company stopped the payments.
8.  On 10 May 1993 the applicant lodged with the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Pruszkowie) an action for payment against the State Insurance Company. The applicant also requested a revaluation of the amount of the pension which would reflect the inflation.
9.  It appears that the first and the second hearing, scheduled for 24 May and 2 June 1993, were adjourned because of the absence of the defendant.
10.  From 9 September 1993 to 26 February 2001 the District Court listed twenty-three hearings. Most of them were adjourned. It also obtained four expert opinions.
11.  On 12 March 2001 the Pruszków District Court gave judgment. It partly allowed the applicant’s claim and increased the amount of his pension.
12.  On 6 December 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court upheld that judgment.
7.  The applicant, born in 1972, is detained in Rampton Hospital.
8.  In July 1973 the applicant and her three siblings were admitted to foster care by the local authority, following reports that their mother was unable to care for them and of squalid living conditions.
9.  In May 1976 the applicant and her sister were placed with Mr and Mrs D. Over the following thirteen years the local authority noted various concerns about the placement. In 1980 matters had deteriorated to the extent that the girls were almost removed. A 1981 memorandum stated that they showed many signs of emotional disturbance. In 1984 and 1985 Mr and Mrs D. resisted a number of attempts by social workers to see the girls alone.
10.  In 1989 the girls made allegations of physical and sexual abuse although no prosecution was brought. In June 1989 both made suicide attempts. In August 1989, the applicant finally left Mr and Mrs D. She was subsequently convicted of various offences, including assault and arson. She was admitted to psychiatric hospitals on a number of occasions and since 1993 has been detained in Rampton Hospital, with a diagnosis of mental illness and psychopathic disorder.
11.  In 1995 the applicant issued proceedings in negligence against the local authority. A psychiatric report was prepared in which the applicant’s account of the horrific abuse she had endured was set out. It included details of how she and her sister had been deprived of food, severely beaten, locked in their room, denied access to the toilet and treated as slaves. The report concluded that the applicant’s traumatic upbringing had significantly contributed to her mental disorder, the symptoms of which included self-mutilation, mood disorder and anti-social behaviour. The applicant had not been aware of any sexual abuse, but her sister later made a statement, in support of a claim by the applicant for criminal injuries compensation, in which she detailed physical and sexual abuse.
12.  In 1996 the High Court struck out the negligence claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, on the basis that there was no duty of care owed by a local authority to children in its care in English law at the time. In 1999 the applicant was awarded 50,000 pounds sterling (GBP) by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, in respect of the abuse by her foster-parents and for a separate claim relating to an assault.
10.  The first applicant is a private company incorporated under Cypriot law and registered in Nicosia on 3 July 1986. It has one director and two shareholders. The second applicant is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, born in 1948 and living in Nicosia. He is the director of the first applicant and also its principal shareholder. The second shareholder of the company is the second applicant's wife. From the date of the incorporation of the first applicant until 28 November 1986, the second applicant owned 1,960 shares and his wife 40 shares. However, since 29 November 1986 the applicant has been the owner of 1,999 shares and his wife the owner of one share.
11.  In April 1988 the first applicant became the co-owner of a substantial amount of property by way of gift. The property is situated in the village of Tymvou, in the northern district of Nicosia, located in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”). It consists of 51 plots of land with registration numbers A174, A194, A195, B245, B121, B238, B321, E262, E266, E268, E279, E291, E292, F221, F222, F301, F308, F314, F318, G102, G162, G193, G246, G288, G298, G299, G407, G411, G414, G415, G418, H17, H18, H26, H76, H87, H90, H98, H109, H112, H117, H130, H136, H144, H179, J12, J13, J32, J38, J46 and J55.
12.  The first applicant owned the property in equal shares with another company also registered in Nicosia. However, on 3 April 1996 the first applicant and the other co-owner transferred their shares in the above property by way of gift to the second applicant. As from 3 April 1996 the second applicant became the exclusive owner of that property.
13.  The applicants state that they are prevented by the Turkish armed forces from having access to their property and using and enjoying possession of it.
14.  On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” enacted the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, which entered into force on the same day.
4.  The applicants were both born in 1940 and live in Florence.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to A.Q.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 September 1984, the applicants informed him of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 14 November 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
8.  In the meanwhile the tenant died and his wife refused to leave the premises.
9.  On 25 September 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.
10.  On 16 November 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 6 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 January 1990.
12.  Between 31 January 1990 and 8 February 2001, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  In the meanwhile, on 1 December 1998, the applicants made a second statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.
14.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, on 9 July 1999, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Florence Magistrate suspended the proceedings until 8 February 2001.
15.  On 9 March 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicants were born in 1908, 1929 and 1935 and live  respectively one in Turin and the others in Tronzano Vercellese.
7.  They are the owners of a flat in Turin, which they had let to M.M.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 8 January 1992, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 19 February 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 19 February 1993.
10.  On 22 February 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 18 March 1993 they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 April 1993.
12.  Between 2 April 1993 and 13 January 1999, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  Pursuant to article no. 6 of Law no. 431/98, the evictions proceedings were suspended until 20 January 2000.
14.  On 27 January 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Prato.
5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Ercolano, which she had let to P.D.R.
6.  In a registered letter of 9 April 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 January 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 May 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Portici Magistrate (Naples).
8.  By a decision of 15 June 1992, which was made enforceable on 22 June 1992, the Portici Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1994.
9.  On 11 February 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 26 February 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 April 1994.
11.  Between 14 April 1994 and 19 July 2000, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 22 July 1999, pursuant to section 6 of law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 4 April 2000.
13.  On 6 October 2000, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rome.
5.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to M.T.O.T.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 January 1991, the applicant informed her that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 21 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
8.  On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 17 March 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.
10.  Between 7 April 1993 and 17 December 1999, the bailiff made thirty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 25 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Pino Torinese (Turin).
5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to V.D.F.
6.  In a registered letter of 10 February 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 August 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 May 1992, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 26 June 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1993.
9.  On 29 September 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 26 October 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 December 1993.
11.  Between 7 December 1993 and 7 October 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 14 June 2000.
13.  On 14 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and live in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to L.E.
6.  In a registered letter of 23 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 5 February 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 4 April 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1986.
10.  On 21 July 1986, invoking articles 10 and 11 of Law No. 84/82, the tenant asked for a postponement of the eviction proceedings and then the Rome Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 May 1987.
11.  On 3 July 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 22 July 1987, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 September 1987.
13.  Between 18 September 1987 and 9 March 2000, the bailiff made fifty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  In the meanwhile, on 27 February 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
15.  On 9 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law No. 431/98, the tenant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the eviction proceedings. Consequently, the Rome Magistrate suspended the proceedings until 15 January 2000.
16.  On 22 March 2000, the applicant sold the flat to the tenant.
4.  The applicants live in Rome.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to G.B. and R.B.F.
6.  In a writ served on the tenants on 23 July 1992, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 17 December 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 August 1993.
8.  On 8 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
9.  On 29 October 1993, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 December 1993.
10.  Between 16 December 1993 and 25 January 2000, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 27 March 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to B.L.
6.  In a registered letter of 11 October 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1994 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 May 1994, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 2 June 1994, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1994, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit on 29 September 1996 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1996. The delay of two years is due to Law no. 359/1992, which extended for two years the expiry of the term.
10.  On 14 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 26 February 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 March 1997.
12.  Between 21 March 1997 and 29 January 1998, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  The applicant, then, decided to suspend the enforcement proceedings in order to avoid additional costs.
14.  On an unspecified date of April 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenant, who was in rent arrears since 29 December 1999, had disappeared.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rome.
5.  She is the owner of a flat in Coperchia (Salerno), which she had let to F.T.
6.  In a registered letter of 12 June 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 August 1994 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 June 1993, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
8.  By a decision of 6 July 1993, which was made enforceable on 22 February 1995, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1995.
9.  On 4 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 24 March 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 April 1995.
11.  On 3 April 1995, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 2 January 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
13.  On 8 January 1997, the applicant asked the Salerno Magistrate to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 8 May 1998, the Salerno Magistrate decided to grant the assistance of the police.
15.  Between 16 July 1998 and 27 January 1999, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  Pursuant to law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
17.  On 20 February 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1955, 1923, 1957 and 1961 and live in Rome.
5.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to M.T.S.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 April 1992, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1992 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 3 December 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1995.
8.  On 8 August 1995, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 15 September 1995, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 October 1995.
10.  Between 13 October 1995 and 27 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 23 March 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Rome.
5.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to B.C.
6.  In a registered letter of 19 February 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 November 1987, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 20 February 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1989.
10.  On 16 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 27 January 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 April 1990.
12.  Between 5 April 1990 and 3 May 2000, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 24 April 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her nephew.
14.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98 the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Rome Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings from 1 September 1999 until 24 November 1999.
15.  On 7 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
7.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
8.  On 17 December 1990 the applicant sued the “Dromex” Company (“the defendant”) in the Warszawa-Praga District Court of Labour and Social Security (Sad Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Pragi Wydzial Pracy), seeking payment of her remuneration.
9.  The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 22 February, 17 April, 8 November 1991 and 10 January 1992.
10.  On 24 August 1992 the expert opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 16 December 1992 and 12 March 1993.
11.  On 4 May 1993 a supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.
12.  The court held further hearings on: 3 September, 24 November 1993 and 25 February 1994.
13.  On 21 June 1994 a second supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.
14.  Subsequently, the trial court held a new round of hearings on: 24 June, 9 November 1994, 3 February 1995, 7 April, 21 July, 13 November 1995, 14 June, 9 October 1996 and 7 March 1997.
15.  On 30 November 1997 the court obtained a fresh expert opinion from another expert.
16.  The court held additional hearings: 16 February 1998, 26 January, 27 June, 8 November 1999, 20 January and 7 April 2000.
17.  On 17 April 2000 the court gave judgment. It became final on 8 May 2000.